Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision information:

Abstract: Application by City for an order declaring certificate of tax arrears be filed as a judgment. Cross-application by taxpayer quashing those provisions of the by-law under which interest calculated and included in tax arrears. Parties agreed that rates of interest are punitive.
Decision: Ex parte order is set aside and leave is granted to the Plaintiff to file a fresh certificate excluding amount other than for property tax as defined by Act. Each party shall bear own costs.
Subjects: Taxation - Real property tax - Collection - Penalties and interest

Decision Content

CV 04589

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

BETWEEN:


THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE

Applicant
(Respondent)
- and -



CURRY CONSTRUCTION 1979 LTD.

Respondent
(Applicant)


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1  The application of The City of Yellowknife in the present instance substantially succeeds, and the cross-application in the main fails, for the reasons given today in the cognate proceedings between these parties in which s.83(c) of the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-10 is held to authorize municipalities in the Northwest Territories to impose punitive rates of interest, by way of penalty, upon defaulting property-taxpayers subject only to the maximum interest rate set by s.83(c).

2  It is agreed between the parties that the certificate of tax arrears presented earlier to the Court, when filing of the certificate pursuant to s.96 of the Act was authorized by an order made ex parte, shall be effectively modified to exclude amounts other than for property tax as defined by the Act.  On that basis, therefore, the ex parte order is set aside and leave is granted to the City to file a fresh certificate showing the modified amounts as agreed.

3  Success being divided, each party shall bear its own costs of the present proceedings.







  M.M. de Weerdt
   J.S.C.



Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
  March 14th 1995



Counsel for the Applicant: Ms. Yvonne M. MacNeill

Counsel for the Respondent: Joe Miller, Esq.

   
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.